Bibliographic record
Abstract
Following the 1994 genocide, a peace‐building industry emerged in Rwanda, one characterized by networks of local and international agents, institutions, and forms of knowledge. This article investigates the politics of peace building in postgenocide Rwanda through ethnographic study of two local civil society‐level organizations. These peace‐building organizations aim to produce testimony from genocide survivors and perpetrators to demonstrate radical personal transformations and newfound capacities to reconcile because of the organizations’ teachings. I call these public performances “reconciliation spectacles.” However, ambiguity and opacity surround the conditions under which this testimony is produced, which gives rise to corruption charges against peace‐building staff and their disciples. I argue that the opaque relationship between peace‐building organizations’ interventions and the outcomes of those interventions engenders not only accusations of ill‐gotten gains but also the power and moral authority of organization staff and their work. The analysis uncovers how irresolvable tensions emerge between guiding principles of the global peace‐building industry and the everyday practices of the local agents who enact them.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".